Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Some media play has been given to the existence of an alternative manuscript tradition for Revelation which has the "number of the beast" being 616 rather than the infamous 666. Despite the breathless coverage of the issue by some, this is hardly news. Irenaeus, writing in the second century, devoted an entire chapter to the number of the beast and therein explained why he favored the number 666 rather than 616.

What is new is that MSM outlets like National Geographic and the Gaurdian have carried the story as if it is a new discovery. Yes, an early manuscript fragment uses the alternative 616 rather than 666. But as noted above and here, we already knew that both traditions existed in the second century so this does not really tell us much we did not already know. Some scholars think 616 was original, more think 666 was original, and some are agnostic about the issue.

Does it matter? Not really. Both 616 and 666 mean the same thing. As Ralph at the Sacred River explains, they are both numeric representations for variant spellings of "Nero Caesar." The meaning of the Book of Revelation is the same either way.

So while this is an interesting textual criticism question, it is not really a theological one.

Reactions:

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Comments

I personally don’t think Nero Caesar is the correct interpretation of “666”. Revelation was written in Greek. The Greek number of Nero Caesar is not “666”. You only get “666” if you transliterate the Hebrew spelling of Nero Caesar into Greek. The regular Hebrew number gives you “676” so you have to use the Hebrew letters and transliterate them into Greek letters to get “666”. The regular Aramaic number gives you “667”. (D.A.Aune, Revelation 6-16-Word Biblical Commentary p.770.) The problem is why would a Greek text written for Greek readers use a Hebrew code. If the goal is concealment, then that goal can be successfully accomplished using Greek alone. No Hebrew gymnastics would be required.

I think the answer is much more simple. Revelation builds on Daniel.

In the book of Daniel, the interpretative key comes first and the visions of the beasts follow.

The key to understanding the beasts of Daniel lies in the dramatic parable of the life of King Nebuchadnezzar.

Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon, in its time, easily the greatest kingdom in the world. But in many ways, this king was "everyman". He had much to be thankful for, but he wasn't thankful at all. The gifts of God- the gifts of life, the gifts of abundant life- had only made him proud. When he surveyed his dominions, his accomplishments, he would say to himself: "my power and the might of my own hand have got me this". (Daniel 4:30; cf. Deuteronomy 9:10-17) He had fallen deeply in love, with himself. Metaphorically speaking, he worshipped himself. He refused to recognize his sin and to repent of it. (Daniel 4:27) Not surprisingly, his actions called down the judgement of heaven on him. And that judgement was not long in coming. It was repeated three times (first in a dream, then in an interpretation, and finally in reality) so that the message would not be forgotten.

“Let his mind [the mind of the king] be changed from that of a human, and let the mind of an animal be given to him.” (Daniel 4:16)

The king lost his humanity. He was stripped of his robes and changed into a beast. Externally, he retained the form of a man; but internally, he had become a beast. The judgement of heaven was that he would roam the fields of the earth seven years, until he recognized his sin and repented of it.

The moral here is really quite simple. In many ways, sin is its own punishment. We become the persons we choose to be; we become our choices.

(1) As we do righteousness and show mercy to the oppressed (Daniel 4:27), we become truly and fully human. That is what it means to bear the image of God, the image of Christ.

(2) But as we play God, we dehumanize ourselves. Whenever we act in ways that are less than truly and fully human, we make ourselves into beasts. And that is what it means to bear the image of beast.

Our punishment is that we will remain beasts, until we repent and give up our self-worship, our desire to play God and lord it over others.

The key to understanding the beasts of Revelation lies in the number of the beast.

“This calls for wisdom; let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is 666." (Revelation 13:18)

Let us examine the phrasing closely.

(1) Number means character.

(2) Because the number of the beast is the number of a person, the character of the beast is the character of a certain type of person.

(3) That character is embodied in the number 666.

Let us examine that number. 666 is a combination of two numbers: 6 and 3. Simply put, 666 is 6 taken 3 times, 6 6 6. Biblically speaking, numbers have significance.

(1) Six is the number of man. The reason is simple. Man was created on the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

(2) Three is the number of God. The reason is equally simple. God is Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19)

(3) Six taken three times, 6 6 6, is man making himself God.

Simply put, to play God is to make oneself a beast.

Now the followers of the beast receive the mark of the beast on their foreheads and on their hands. (Revelation 14:9) The anatomy here is significant.

In Jesus' time, a man of God, when he turned to God in prayer, wore "teffilin" or phylacteries on his head and arms. One phylactery was worn over the head so that its centrepiece, a cube, rests on the forehead. The second phylactery was worn on the arm so that the centrepiece, a cube, rests near the heart, and the wrappings that flow from the cube flow down the arm and end in the hand. Each phylactery represented an aspect of the love of God. Each cube contains a copy of the Shema, the central confession of the faith, a confession of love:

“Hear O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart. Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Bind them as a sign on your hand, fix them as an emblem on your forehead, and write them on the doorposts of your houses and on your gates.” (Deuteronomy 6:5-9)

The thought is quite simple and quite beautiful. The love of God should always be foremost in our minds (our foreheads), ever close to our hearts, and should issue forth in all our actions (our hands).

The followers of the beast are a demonic parody of the man of God. Their love is not for God, but for themselves. They recognize one God, themselves, and serve themselves with all their heart, all their soul and all their might. The thought is quite simple and quite ugly. The love of Self is always foremost in their minds (their foreheads), ever close to their hearts, and issues forth in all their actions (their hands). That is why the mark of the beast is always on the forehead and on the hands. The fact that it is a demonic parody suggests to me that it is a distorted mirror image. When the reflection is seen in a mirror, the “teffelin” which is normally seen on the left arm and hand is now seen on the right arm and hand.

So what is it to play God? The name of God, as revealed to Moses in the burning bush, is this: "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14). When human beings play God, when human beings claim to be God, they are making a certain type of claim.

(1) The claim is not metaphysical. They are not claiming to be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present.

(2) The claim is moral. They are claiming that there is no sin in their life for which they need repent.

As "God", they claim to be "perfect" the way they are; they have no need to change. As "God", they say: "I am what I am"; I am "perfect" the way I am; I have no need to change. And that is why making oneself God, playing God, is very nearly the unforgivable sin. For the man who truly believes he does not need to change his ways, that man will never repent, never be forgiven, never come to understand the love of God. That man will never become truly and fully human; he will remain a beast throughout eternity.

Popular posts from this blog

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated.

In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article. Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I h…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

John Lennox is a wonderful spokesman for Christianity. In many ways, he is the one Christian apologist who has acquired the mantle of C.S. Lewis in the way that he is able to take points that are sometimes difficult for those unfamiliar with thinking about Christianity and reduces them to simple arguments using metaphors and examples that anyone can understand.

Since it is the Christmas season, I thought it worthwhile to point a video by Dr. Lennox entitled "Christmas for Doubters." In the video, he responds to the idea that the early Christians believed in the Virgin Birth because they were too ignorant to understand how babies were conceived. Rather, by comparing the accounts of the birth of Jesus with the birth of John the Baptist, Dr. Lennox shows that those who wrote the Gospels understood that the authors of the Gospels did have an understanding of where babies come from, but that they understood that the births of both Jesus and John the Baptist were outside of ordin…

It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy with the concept of miracles. So should we all be watchful not to believe too quickly because its easy to get caught up in private reasons and ignore reason itself. Thus has more than one intelligent person been taken by both scams and honest mistakes. By the the same token it is equally a danger that one will remain too long in the skeptical place and become overly committed to doubting everything. From that position the circular reasoning of the naturalist seems so reasonable. There’s never been any proof of miracles before so we can’t accept that there is any now. But that’s only because we keep making the same assumption and thus have always dismissed the evidence that was valid. At this point most atheists will interject the ECREE issue (or ECREP—extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or “proof”). That would justify the notion of remaining skeptical about miracle evidence even when its good. The…

Lately, I have been listening to a series of lectures by Hubert Dreyfus, Ph.D., a Philosophy professor at U.C. Berekley, concerning the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. The lecture has been very interesting, and while I think that Professor Dreyfus has some questionable interpretations of the Bible, his discussions have given me a greater understanding of Kierkegaard's view of faith. Most importantly, it has helped me clarify in my own mind the use of the illustration of a Knight of Faith and the example of Abraham and Isaac.

The Two Knights of Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard, the great Danish philosopher of the 19th Century, can be considered the father of modern existentialism. In his work Fear and Trembling, he wrote about the difference between two types of people whom he called the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith. In Fear and Trembling, , Kierkegaard identifies Abraham as a Knight of Faith. In his lectures, however, I get the sense that Professor Dreyfus, who I ac…

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here.]

Having explained why, as a Christian, I do not hold to what many people (Christian and sceptic) have considered the 'party line' that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, I will now explore this issue from a deeper philosophical perspective.

A Christian (or other religious theist) who accepts a faith/reason disparity will usually do so for religious reasons. His argument that these two aspects must be mutually exclusive (or at least need not have anything to do with each other) will be grounded on positions and presumptions which usually proceed from a devout loyalty to God's status, or from authority of specifically religious leaders, or from the structure of religious ritual, or some combination thereof.

And a sceptic who accepts a faith/reason disparity might do so only because, as far as he can tell, his opposition has chosen that grou…

William Lane Craig remains one of the most erudite and knowledgeable of today's Christian philosophers. His book, Reasonable Faith, has remained one of my favorite Apologetics tools because he lays out many of the Christian claims so clearly and cogently that only the most hardened of skeptics dismisses him or his work as being without weight. Certainly, his writings have led many people to turn their hearts toward Jesus.

We are blessed that Dr. Craig maintains a website also called Reasonable Faith with lots of information that can be accessed free of charge to make a case for Christianity. One of the great features of his website includes a question and answer section where Dr. Craig selects questions that have been addressed to him, and he generally provides really good answers that can help inform all Christians' Apologetics efforts. Unfortunately, this blog has not referenced Dr. Craig's work nearly as often as we ought, but I want to focus on one of the questions …

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

“[What] we have today is worse than ignorance of the Bible. It is contempt for it. Just about anyone who quotes the Bible, let alone says it is the source of his or her values, is essentially regarded as a simpleton who is anti-science, anti-intellectual and sexist.” ~ Dennis Prager, Jewish thinker and nationally syndicated talk show host, from I’m Back, Here’s Where I’ve Been.
There is no question that Christianity in the West is under attack from some in the public square. While Christians are still able to worship as they choose and to follow their faith (as long as they do so in private), one would need to be blind to overlook the effort by some to turn the public perception of Christianity as being backwards, ignorant and responsible for hatred. For example, in May 2011 the Huffington Post, the left-leaning Internet website, published an article entitled If You’re a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong by Cenk Uygur wherein Uygur expressed what I cannot doubt is the view of…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.